Thompson v. Haile

12 Tex. 139
Texas Supreme Court·Decided July 1, 1854·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Hemphill, Ch. J.

The depositions were excluded on the ground that they were not properly certified to by the officer taking the same. The defect was in the omission to certify that they were signed by the witness. We are of opinion that there was no error in the exclusion of the depositions. The statute requires not only that the witness shall sign [140]*140the answers, but that the officer shall certify the fact of such signature; and this certificate was intended to be authentic evidence of such fact. This being omitted, there is no error in the judgment;• and it is ordered that the same be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Thompson v. Haile, 12 Tex. 139 (Tex. 1854).

12 Tex. 139 (Thompson v. Haile) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bankers Multiple Line Insurance Co. v. Gordon
422 S.W.2d 244 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1967)
Bush v. Barron
14 S.W. 238 (Texas Supreme Court, 1890)
Sabine & East Texas Railway Co. v. Brousard
7 S.W. 374 (Texas Supreme Court, 1888)